Bush’s Most Recent Revisionism
Democrats, Vice President Dick Cheney said the other day, are “trying to rewrite history for their own political purposes” when they accuse the Bush administration of launching a war based on a false threat assessment. But–no shocker here–it is Cheney and George W. Bush who have been engaged in extreme historical revisionism, as they have responded to the Senate intelligence committee’s report’s conclusion that there was no good intelligence to back up the administration’s assertion that Iraq posed a direct and immediate threat to the United States. (See my previous entries on the report here and here.)
Speaking at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory on July 12, Bush claimed the war was necessary because Saddam Hussein had the “capability of producing” unconventional weapons. A few days earlier, at an “Ask President Bush” event in Kutztown, Pennsylvania, Bush maintained that Hussein had “the capacity to make [unconventional] weapons. See, he had the ability to make them.” How does this not qualify as revisionism, given that Bush and Cheney before the war told the nation and the world that Iraq had to be invaded because Hussein was sitting on a huge pile of chemical and biological weapons? Prior to the attack, Bush even suggested it was possible Hussein possessed nuclear weapons (a view disputed by the intelligence community). Moreover, Bush’s new-and-improved justification for the war–that Hussein had the “capability of producing"–is disingenuous and questionable.
Once more, let’s review what some experts have had to say about Hussein’s WMD “capability.”
In February 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell said at a press conference that the sanctions against Iraq had been imposed “for the purposes of keeping in check Saddam Hussein’s ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction….And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.” [My told-you-so emphasis.]
And earlier this year, David Kay, who had been the Bush administration’s chief WMD hunter in Iraq, declared that Iraq had no weapons and that its ability to produce WMDs was severely limited. “I don’t think there was a large-scale production program in the 90s,” Kay told Reuters. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Kay said there was “no indication of a WMD production process that would have produced such stockpiles.”
“Capability” is a shifty term. Yes, Hussein’s Iraq had manufactured WMDs in the past (and had used them). And that did mean his regime could do so again. But after the first Gulf War and years of sanctions and inspections, his WMD “capability” was restrained. It was not a “capability” that threatened the United States in the near-term. And intrusive inspections could have kept that “capability” in check.
To defend himself from the charge that he launched a war that was not imperative, Bush has been rewriting other history as well. In Kutztown, he said, Hussein “was a threat, see. And I said he’s a threat. I went to the United Nations and said, he’s a threat. And they agreed with the fact that he was a threat, by a 15 to nothing vote in the United Nations Security Council. See, the world spoke. Not only America speak, the world spoke. I looked at the intelligence, members of the United States Senate looked at the same intelligence and saw a threat. And the United Nations saw the threat. They said, disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences.”
Others will recall that the UN Security Council decided that Hussein did not pose enough of a danger to warrant an attack. The Security Council voted to renew weapons inspections and to demand that Hussein cooperate. When Bush argued that Hussein was a threat that had to be removed right away, he did not win over the Security Council. And by the way, a great many people–including most of the House Democrats–did not view Iraq as an immediate “threat.”
At Kutztown, Bush also said that international WMD “inspectors like you had for years were denied access [in Iraq after the UN renewed inspections in 2002]. And so I had a choice to make. I’m the President who was in office during September the 11th; I remember the lessons well. The choice was to trust Saddam Hussein, or to make the decisions necessary to defend our country. And given that choice, I will defend America every single time.”
The crowd applauded, but this schtick was dishonest as well. First, Hussein did allow the inspectors access to suspected WMD sites. Chief inspector Hans Blix complained that Hussein’s government did not produce documents the inspectors wished to examine and that the regime did not make all of its weapons scientists available for questioning. But Blix’s inspectors were able to enter facilities, and the inspections process was proceeding. Second, the “choice” was not “to trust Saddam Hussein.” That was not an option on the table. Opponents of war had called for continuing or intensifying the inspections process–even to the point of mounting military-backed inspections. And as history showed before the war–and now–inspections had succeeded in curtailing Hussein’s WMD “capability.” As he did so often before the war, Bush was depicting the alternatives available to him in simplistic and misleading terms: he either had to invade and occupy Iraq or “trust” the butcher of Baghdad. This is not quite historical revisionism; it’s misrepresentation.
“Today,” Bush said at Oak Ridge, “because America and our coalition helped to end the violent regime of Saddam Hussein, and because we’re helping to raise a peaceful democracy in its place, the American people are safer.” Maybe. Maybe not. Terrorist experts–even in the Bush administration–note that the war in Iraq has prompted Islamic extremists around the world (many of whom were previously focused on matters close to home) to adopt the anti-America agenda and priorities of Osama bin Laden. And US military officials in Iraq have lately been telling American reporters there that they have found few “foreign” terrorists in Iraq and that the insurgency is being mounted mostly by pissed-off Iraqis. So it’s not as if the US military is engaging the thugs of al Qaeda–the immediate enemy–in the streets of Iraq. Put all this together–and add in the distinct possibility that the war in Iraq has drawn attention and resources that might otherwise have been applied to the missions in Afghanistan (including the get-Osama task)–and it is a strong possibility that the American people are not safer. At best, Bush’s we’re-safer claim is a who-knows proposition.
Can’t Bush simply say, We were wrong, we overstated the threat from Iraq, but still it’s good we took out that scumbag? No, it seems. To defend his prewar use of falsehoods, he keeps dishing out new ones.
Mistakes? I’m sure some mistakes have been made. I wish you could’ve submitted that question in writing….
C’mon David, getting the ‘Shrub to admit to fallibility’d be like getting water to flow uphill. Apparently getting more than half the country to face reality is just such a battle.
Thanx for getting the comments back. We promise to be acceptably civil. Ok, maybe we’ll have to be creative like the guy in New York who asked “Can you tell me the time, or should I just go Cheney myself?
Comment by Hajji — 7/14/2004 @ 6:21 pm
Bush’s rationale has evolved from the false allegation that Hussein had “WMD” to the claim that there were “weapons of mass destruction program-related activities” to the now even more convoluted claim that we went to war because Hussein had the potential capacity to institute weapons of mass destruction program-related activities.
Wow, frankly that’s a bigger mouthful of bullshit than I feel comfortable with.
Comment by The Wild-Eyed Fool — 7/14/2004 @ 8:21 pm
In Jan 2002 Bush said this:
“The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade.”
Plotted to develop. And this:
“By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes [Iran, Iraq, N Korea] pose a grave and growing danger. ”
Seeking WMDs. And this:
“We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction.”
Deny materials, technology and expertise to make WMDs.
He was talking about production capabilities all along.
The revisionism here is coming from the far left.
Comment by Bill — 7/14/2004 @ 9:44 pm
Just a theory but…
I think what we are seeing is elaborate charade to convince the world that we made a mistake, that our intelligence was bad.
I think both the Clinton and Bush administrations, and maybe most of the world’s intelligence services, knew there were no significant WMDs or programs in Iraq.
The end result of this game, of course, will be to give the CIA more money and fewer restrictions and at the same time convince some part of the world and ourselves in the US that we are incompetent in our intelligence gathering. The more incompetent we appear, the less our enemies will fear us, the easier it will be for us to gather information about them, and the more it can be argued we need fewer restrictions on intelligence gathering.
I think we were in a dilemma in 1998. Between the Gulf War, the sanctions, and the inspection regimes, we had destroyed most of the WMDs and programs in Iraq. We probably knew the locations of what little remained.
But If we had acknowledged that Iraq was free of WMDs, we would have had to lift sanctions. With sanctions lifted, Saddam Hussein could have become a threat again and could have reconstituted his weapons programs. It was clearly not in our national interests to have that happen.
So we pulled out, bombed what was left, and developed the fiction that Iraq was still a threat. Both the Clinton and Bush administrations colluded with the CIA to maintain the lie that WMDs and programs existed in Iraq. This required, of course, the regular manufacturing of evidence that the programs were in existence.
The Bush administration with its own agenda twisted this lie on its head by taking action as if they really believed it.
Comment by Jim — 7/15/2004 @ 12:10 am
I’m trying to see this from the perspective of someone far-removed from American politics.
Let’s see… The President of the U.S., his henchmen AND most of the US congress stated reasons for invading a country, say one of my neighboring nations, and did so with such precision and dispatch that only between ten and twenty thousand (mostly innocent) people were killed. Now both the U.S, and Bristish governments are telling us that most, if not all of their intelligence was not just mishandled and mis analysed, but they couldn’t have gotten it much more wrong if they’d just MADE STUFF UP!?
So the President allows the CIA chief, who he has said repeatedly, “I have EVERY confidence in..” to resign and get out of town the day BEFORE reports of ridiculous assesments and highly questionable sources is made public!?
…and still not one single person has been fired, prosecuted or executed for causing the death of a thousand US military personnel, over ten thousand Iraqis, the mutilation of the bodies and minds of tens of thousands more, the continuing effects of that war and the instability to the entire region?
…hmmmmm…. well Okey Dokey, then! Is the Mickey D’s drive throught open yet?
Comment by Hajji — 7/15/2004 @ 6:26 am
I was deeply impressed with Tony Blair’s comments in response to the Butler reports in Great Britain, namely that he takes “responsibility” for his part in the intelligence fiasco. I know that Blair is getting flack for his sins of omission, but Blair has already given Brits SO much more in his utterance of those words, “I take responsibility.”
The burning irony of our situation here is almost more than I can bear–the fact that our president harps on the theme of personal responsibility in other contexts (read: “tort reform” and moral issues–as if war is not also a moral issue) but cannot admit to an iota of responsibility in this most dire case. As a deeply spiritual person, this is what truly BURNS me about this administration–they seem so utterly oblivious to their raging hypocrisy.
Comment by Karen in Texas — 7/15/2004 @ 7:45 am
Bill,
The president said posesses and produces. I offer this from his own White House website:
The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime’s own actions – its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.
also:
While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone – because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people.
George W. Bush available on:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
It is easy to say that he talked about production capabilities and offer quotes. That does not argue that he didn’t also talk about possesion and you are intelligent enough to recognize that.
Robert
Comment by Robert Schwartz — 7/15/2004 @ 9:30 am
Thank you Robert for those facts. Journalists are buying into President Bush’s propoganda that he “never said they are a threat.” In fact, he did and now wants us to be confused. It will take us years of hard work to repay our debts due to this war. We should at least know why we are working so hard. The future spin will be to blame it on tax increases to repay the debts. People will forget all of this and praise George Bush. Your quotations point out that we were told these things. Will the journalists (in print, media, and internet) report these facts or report the spin. All too often, it is the spin that keeps getting repeated with no end.
Comment by Joe Tully — 7/15/2004 @ 11:48 am
One of the reasons spin works is that it reduces very complex, layered concepts to simplistic, easy-to-digest sound-bites that quite intentionally blur the issues and lead the public in exactly the way the political party wants it to go. Obviously the right has been extraordinarly successful in obfuscation because they are so dang good at those sound-bites being repeated over and over–and what is restated over and over finally becomes more “true” than the historical record itself.
More careful, intelligent thinkers lose the battle because we don’t want to reduce everything to a black-and-white, easy sound-bite. We know the situation is much more complex than that. However, try as we might to say, “Look at the record! Look at the record!” most people simply are not going to do that. Most folks, sadly enough, only want the bare-bones, easy answers.
It almost seems that the trail of lies needs to be communicated in an “easy” way that will appeal to the majority of people and their desire to have the news reduced to simple, easily mimicked phrases.
I realize this comment sounds rather elitist. It could be read as my saying, “Oh, well, I can see the truth because I’m smarter.” And that’s really not what I’m saying. Honest! I just honestly don’t think the majority of people in America really and truly want to think and investigate things closely. Talk about depressing!!!
Comment by Karen in Texas — 7/15/2004 @ 12:01 pm
Robert,
Some folks here are saying that Bush changed his motivations from WMDs to “programs” to “activities". I offered those quotes to demonstrate that he was talking about “programs” and “activities", consistently, from the beginning, along with “possession". His motivations were consistent throughout.
And Iraq was a threat, according to the UN.
Comment by Bill — 7/15/2004 @ 12:53 pm
Bill,
Iraq was a “CONTAINED” threat according to the UN.
The UN did not approve of military force, and the US would NOT have won a vote in the Security Council to approve the invasion. The US pulled the second resolution because of that. Any other claim is disingenious.
Robert
Comment by Robert Schwartz — 7/15/2004 @ 1:07 pm
Karen,
I was never a very good athlete. Good athletes can boast all they want.
I was always a quick learner. Quick learners get called elitists and other bad names.
By the way, how many creationist anti-evolutionists do you think are currently working on missile defense programs?
Robert
Comment by Robert Schwartz — 7/15/2004 @ 1:15 pm
Robert,
Apparently he UN was making illicit $$$ from the “contained threat” of Iraq. Where’s the outrage?
The Security Council was evenly split over using military force. France’s threatened veto of another resolution was what put an end to discussions.
Comment by Bill — 7/15/2004 @ 1:43 pm
I’m shocked, shocked, that there are plenty of kleptos all over the world. Who’da thunk. Of course, the sanctions regime was trouble from the start, and everytime Saddam got close to the goalpost, the goal would move. No, it isn’t about WMD, it is about regime change.
Let other countries take care of their own thieves, we have enough trouble getting rid of our own.
Comment by Robert Schwartz — 7/15/2004 @ 2:15 pm
Despite failing to stand up to the pressure placed on him by this administration, most people think Tony Blair is a man character and conviction. Our “President", unfortunately, is not. Can you imagine Bush saying that he accepts FULL responsibility for, well, anything? Bush and Cheney still continue to make statements, supported by no evidence, in front of their supporters about Iraq. They continues to say we are safer because we invaded Iraq. This despite the fact he has yet to show exactly what and who was the threat to our security. Was it the growing number of WMDs? Or the growing fleet of unmanned aerial machines? The collaborative presence of Al-Qaeda in Iraq? George Bush had no answer when David Gregory of NBC asked him if he had made any mistakes during his presidency. The Republicans never question Bush and the Democrats certainly aren’t forceful enough. I guess we will have to depend on foreign press members to ask “President” Bush the tough questions with tougher answers.
Comment by Kevin — 7/16/2004 @ 1:23 pm
“If you repeat a lie often enough people will believe it” – Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s ‘Karl Rove’
Comment by Delta Foxtrot — 7/17/2004 @ 9:17 pm
“If you repeat a lie often enough people will believe it”
The mantra of the left in the United States today. They are also the masters at attempted re-writes of history ala 1984.
Comment by Tim — 7/18/2004 @ 9:22 am